One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

Why can't they? Can't they just not care about causing offense and say it anyway? I mean, I think the distinction is whether there's the threat of violence or not..

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

Should we have it? I dont think so. We abuse all of our freedoms. We demand freedom of speech and wont except the responsibility that comes along with it.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

Both.

So if I were to say, for example, that all Christians are idiotic and wrong and I think they all deserve eternal suffering and pain for their beliefs, that would not be censored and punished?

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

Both.

Also, if you were publicly racist, or evoked hatred towards the government, or a group of people. Would that not be punished?

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

Both.

So if I were to say, for example, that all Christians are idiotic and wrong and I think they all deserve eternal suffering and pain for their beliefs, that would not be censored and punished?

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

Both.

So if I were to say, for example, that all Christians are idiotic and wrong and I think they all deserve eternal suffering and pain for their beliefs, that would not be censored and punished?

Not by the U.S. government. No.

In which case, you have met much more liberal officials in the US than many that I and others have had the misfortune of encountering.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

As if to imply you only have freedom of speech if everyone agrees with your speech. I find it quite taxing to take such arguments seriously. Freedom of speech is a restriction upon government barring punitive actions towards it's citizens for statements of opinion made.

What I am saying is that the government can censor and punish you if what you are saying is in anyway disagreeable by a large enough mass of people.

Here in the U.S. at least, it is not legal for the government to do so.

Do you disagree with what I said, or do you just not like the way in which it was written?

Both.

So if I were to say, for example, that all Christians are idiotic and wrong and I think they all deserve eternal suffering and pain for their beliefs, that would not be censored and punished?

If freedom of speech were as limited as you claim, the thought process you used to derive the sentence you dispersed above would not exist.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

You are free to do whatever you want you just have to face the punishment.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Dude freedom of speech is only restricted by how you can't say something that will endanger others. If you take that too literally then you need to go back to school

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

You are free to do whatever you want you just have to face the punishment.

Freedom: conservative style

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

You are free to do whatever you want you just have to face the punishment.

Freedom: conservative style

I lol'd. However, I'm not sure if that is specific to modern conservatism over modern liberalism.

Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

You are free to do whatever you want you just have to face the punishment.

Freedom: conservative style

I lol'd. However, I'm not sure if that is specific to modern conservatism over modern liberalism.

At 9/10/2013 1:07:12 PM, Picard wrote:One can only say what the government or society allows them to say. For example, if one wants to ridicule a religion as they do not agree with it, they cannot, for risk of causing offence. Or one cannot spread any belief publicly, that may be seen as offensive or un-agreeable.

If the freedom of speech is not an absolute, then it is not a freedom at all.

You are free to do whatever you want you just have to face the punishment.

Freedom: conservative style

I lol'd. However, I'm not sure if that is specific to modern conservatism over modern liberalism.

I wouldn't differentiate the two too much in regards to the principle. It was just the way he phrased it.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.